In April President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START), a measure designed to mutually and verifiably reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Specifically, it would reduce U.S. and Russian warheads by approximately one third and would continue and strengthen the verification regime that has allowed the inspections and surveillance that have informed U.S. intelligence about Russian nuclear forces for decades.

The treaty is now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may come before the full Senate for a vote on ratification this summer.

Over the last several months, America’s military leaders and national security experts—from both Republican and Democratic administrations—have testified before Senate committees, all with the same message: the treaty’s modest mutual reductions and strengthened verification regime improve our national security, and the Senate should ratify the treaty.

On the benefits afforded by the treaty, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was clear: “Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States.”

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, made it clear that Admiral Mullen was not alone: “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership,” he wrote.

Testimony in favor of the treaty has also come from former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger and William Perry, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger and former National Security Advisors Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley.

In fact, 30 high-level national security experts from across the political spectrum – including Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Frank Carlucci, Chuck Hagel and John Danforth – published an open letter in support of the treaty.

One of the most compelling reasons for ratifying the treaty is the enormous risk involved in failing to do so. Rejection of this treaty would amount to voluntarily giving up our decades-old capacity to keep tabs on the Russian arsenal.

As General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander, testified, “If we don't get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and … we have no insight into what they’re doing. So it’s the worst of both possible worlds.”

Some who oppose the treaty have repeatedly raised concerns that the treaty somehow limits U.S. missile defense capabilities. Again and again, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and others have assured Senators that those concerns are unfounded and that the treaty does not limit missile defense.

Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, was even more emphatic, stating that, “Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program.”

Despite the remarkable bipartisan consensus in support of the treaty, its fate in the Senate is hardly assured.

Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee may well set the tone in determining whether the bipartisan support the treaty enjoys among the military leadership and national security experts is reflected in the Senate. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking member of the committee, has announced his support for the treaty and called for its prompt ratification. Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK) have announced their opposition. Those undecided are Senators Bob Corker (R-TN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), James Risch (R-ID), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

The importance of the treaty demands a statesmanlike approach to this debate. As the vote approaches, the pressure to politicize the issue will increase. But this is an issue that should be above politics. The expert consensus is clear, and those who would disregard the facts and the advice of our nation’s military leadership in an attempt to make political hay do so at the risk of our national security.

The undecided members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee deserve recognition for the seriousness with which they have approached this debate. Having weighed the issue, let us hope they, along with the rest of the Senate, decide to stand with our nation’s military leadership and the combined experience of security experts from Republican and Democratic administrations alike when it comes time to vote.

As Secretary Gates noted, “For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result - on account of the dangerous weapons it reduces, the critical defense capabilities it preserves, the strategic stability it maintains, and, above all, the security it provides to the American people.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Castellaw is a 36-year retired US Marine Corps general, now living on his family farm in Crockett County, TN.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/2010

One crucial lesson from the BP oil spill is that measures to speed licensing, cut corners on safety and undermine regulation can lead to tragic consequences. Yet Congress appears on the verge of repeating mistakes that led to the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf.

Federal lawmakers are weighing a BP-type deregulation of new nuclear reactors - the one energy source in which damage from a major accident could dwarf harm done by a ruptured offshore oil well.

In this effort, the nuclear industry's backers are working both sides of the street. On one hand, they proclaim that the current nuclear regulatory system is so superior, it could well serve as a model for regulating the petrochemical industry.

At the same time, those nuclear proponents are working behind the scenes for regulatory rollbacks that would dramatically reshape safety and environmental requirements for new reactors. These provisions might be incorporated into a climate bill, or into a narrower "energy-only" bill that could be voted on by the Senate as early as this month.

The result of the changes making the rounds of Capitol Hill would further undermine Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety reviews by truncating the licensing process for new reactors, scaling back environmental-impact reviews, and limiting public transparency in reactor licensing decisions. All are bad ideas.

Here are a few of the problematic provisions proposed in draft legislation that should not be included in a final climate or energy bill:

* The NRC would not be authorized to prevent startup of a new reactor, even if fundamental safety components already inspected were later compromised in the construction process.

* The NRC would be required to propose and implement an "expedited procedure" for issuing construction and operating licenses for new reactors under certain conditions.

* An impossibly high standard would be set for including an evaluation of the need for power, the cost of the new reactor, and alternative energy sources within the NRC licensing process.

* The NRC could no longer hold a mandatory hearing to do an independent safety and environmental review in new reactor licensing.

Nuclear reactors already have the most streamlined licensing process of any type of industrial facility in the United States. What is delaying the review of reactor applications isn't the licensing process, but the fact that the industry has been unable to submit adequate design proposals for reactors or to respond to the NRC in timely fashion.

Rather than weakening reactor safety rules, Congress should send the NRC the right message - safety over speed - by strengthening them.

For example, the NRC should be required to take into consideration "worst-case" accident situations. The NRC has resisted pressure to analyze risks posed by terrorist attacks on spent fuel storage casks, although such an attack could cause a severe release of radiation. As with the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, mere assurance that the worst-case situation won't happen is a hollow promise.

The notion that lack of a recent major reactor accident makes such an occurrence a "remote possibility," therefore justifying lax safety regulation, is the same illogical and irresponsible thinking that set the stage for the BP disaster.

As the oil spill illustrates all too well, the more complex the technology, the greater the chance of catastrophic failure. Because of human error, technological failure or unforeseen events, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be other major disasters. The catastrophic effects of these on human health and our environment will continue for generations. As we have seen at Chernobyl and are seeing in the Gulf, our environment cannot sustain this continued onslaught.

We must drastically change the direction of our energy future. This is possible through the use of clean, renewable and sustainable technologies. When it comes to disasters caused by technologies such as deep offshore drilling or nuclear power, even one accident is one too many.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Patterson is president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

When those who speak for regular folks – you, me and everyday working people – are outspent in Washington, even the most welcome legislation tends to serve the rich and powerful. As the country anticipates President Obama signing financial reform legislation, the scorecard is so starkly out of balance that it's shameful. While a coalition of national and community-based organizations was able to raise $3 million to advocate for average people, the financial industry was spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying efforts.

Americans for Financial Reform, a broad coalition of local, state and national organizations, took up advocating for a financial system that's for the people, one that's accountable, fair and equitable. Despite the enormity of what’s at stake – jobs, economic security and the future of millions of Americans – a new report from the Institute for American’s Future makes it all too clear how much the coalition has been severely outspent by larger, better-funded interest groups.

If financial reform, or any reform, is ever to serve the interests of the people, the balance of power – which is to say, the ability to generate vital lobbying resources – must shift.

Our nation’s 70,000-plus grant-making foundations – which steward half a billion dollars of partially public money – have an opportunity to help solve pressing social problems by investing in grassroots civic engagement and advocacy. Their commitment to democracy can save it; their failure may well doom it.

The recent passage of health care reform shows that David can win against Goliath, especially when foundations help out. Thanks in large part to efforts of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a broad coalition of advocates, Americans now have the beginnings of a better, more accessible and affordable health care system. HCAN would not have been as successful as it was, however, without the impressive support it received from numerous foundations, including the largest advocacy grant in history, provided by The Atlantic Philanthropies.

HCAN raised and spent some $40 million in its effort to represent health consumers in the debate. Sure, its spending was dwarfed by the spending of health industry interests. But at least HCAN had enough resources to mount a strong fight. That fight clearly demonstrated that the nation’s private and community foundations are the perfect vehicle to ensure that voices of our communities are heard.

A recent study on the effect of foundation support to nonprofit organizations involved in advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement in Los Angeles County demonstrates conclusively that it makes a world of difference. In greater L.A., over a five-year period, foundations invested $58 million in the advocacy work of 15 grassroots organizations. This handful of groups trained more than 14,000 community leaders, generated more than 40,000 new members and drew close to 55,000 people to public events focused on critical civic issues. By promoting democratic participation in this way, their efforts resulted in nearly $7 billion in tangible benefits for families and communities – benefits like higher wages, better access to health care, expanded civil and human rights, and a cleaner environment.

Given the remarkable impact this modest investment in democracy delivered, there is little doubt that vigorous support for advocacy and policy engagement will help counter rising corporate influence on our democratic debates.

The Los Angeles experience is not unique. Similar studies in Minnesota, New Mexico and North Carolina reveal the same result – where foundations support civic engagement, democracy grows dramatically stronger.

Sadly, too many nonprofits that seek to broaden citizen participation in the policy process are underfunded. Efforts to bring voices of ordinary Americans into policy debates need more support from the philanthropic sector to balance out the efforts of other interest groups. We need a concerted, concentrated commitment from local, state and national foundations to support the broadest possible participation in the discussions.

Democracy and the future of America are at stake. Philanthropy can open – and keep open -- the door to more vigorous, thoughtful and creative debates about who government serves: corporations or individual citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which conducted the studies on the impact of foundation support for advocacy.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

Imagine joining friends for a late-night game of Monopoly, but in this game, there’s a twist: At the start of the game, one player gets an entire side of the game board, from Pacific Ave. to Boardwalk, including the Short Line railroad. Instead of pondering easy questions like whether to be the shoe or the thimble, you’re now grappling with a more important question: Do you even stand a chance in such a lopsided game?

As you ponder the fairness of this board game, Congress is debating the very real future of our federal estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth designed in part to prevent one player from owning most of the board before the game even begins.

Recently, a new proposal was introduced in an effort to break through the stalemate that has led to the current tax holiday for the super wealthy. Because of the inability of Congress to reach agreement back in December, the year 2010 is slowly passing as the first since 1916 with no estate tax. Billions of dollars are now being transferred tax-free, while our national deficit grows. The heirs of the late Texas billionaire Dan Duncan stand to inherit, free of any estate tax, more than the average American earns in 4,000 lifetimes. No one questions the right of parents to pass on a legacy to their children, but how much is enough?

Despite its kitchen table status today, the Monopoly board game can trace its roots to Lizzie Magie, who created the game in 1903 as an educational tool to help people understand that free market economies, absent rules to ensure otherwise, naturally move toward monopoly control as wealth is increasingly concentrated into the hands of the few. It takes public policies, from anti-monopoly rules to progressive tax systems, to protect free markets from this self-destructive tendency. The fact is: any economic system is effective only to the extent that its more extreme aspects are reined in.

Our progressive tax system, including the estate tax, helped guide our economy and fuel the broadly shared prosperity our nation experienced during the post-war period. However, that progressive tax system came under a 30-year assault which began in the early 1980s. We’ve seen the consequences of this backsliding and the misguided tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of the promised trickle-down, we got stagnant wages for most Americans and the widest disparity of income our nation has seen since 1928, just before the Great Depression. It’s time to recapture the core values that made our economy work, beginning with the preservation of a strong estate tax.

The importance of a strong estate tax cannot be overstated. Transfers of wealth from generation to generation impact every aspect of our economic landscape, even the persistent racial wealth divide. While we’ve made significant strides at closing the income gap in the half-century since the great Civil Rights victories, the gap in actual wealth is much harder to shake because wealth transfers forward. Even today, African-Americans have only 10 cents of net wealth for every $1 of net wealth that whites have. Latinos have 12 cents. Without a strong estate tax, the inequalities of the past will forever haunt our nation, leaving the Monopoly board permanently tilted.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and other estate tax opponents are wrong in trying to weaken the estate tax. Congress should instead work to preserve a strong estate tax for the benefit of all Americans. A robust estate tax represents the kind of commonsense solution that balances the desire to protect small businesses and farms with generous deductions, while ensuring that the super-wealthy give back to support the country that made their prosperity possible.

Even in a game – like Monopoly – we can see the need for rules to ensure that opportunity continually circulates throughout our economy to create a broadly shared prosperity for all, not just a select few. Preserving a strong estate tax is essential to ensuring that each subsequent generation has a chance to achieve the American dream. Without it, we have to ask ourselves, is the game hopelessly stacked? Should we even bother playing?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Miller serves as executive director of United for a Fair Economy, online at www.faireconomy.org.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by Louisiana Forum. 7/10

The shy 14-year-old was not sure how many people she had killed. “When it was my turn to shoot someone, I always hid my face because I was afraid.” Julia (not her real name) is one of thousands of children in Colombia who have been recruited for combat in a decades-long war.

Her story is tragically typical. Years ago, Julia’s family fled their home in the countryside when her father was accused of betraying the local guerrilla commander. Like so many displaced people, Julia’s family ended up in one of Bogotá’s sprawling and dangerous shanty-towns.

Unable to enroll in school because of the cost, Julia spent most of her time in the streets. Gradually, she stopped going home at night because of an abusive new step-father. Julia was 11-years-old at the time, homeless, hungry and afraid.

The men who approached her were kind. They offered food, adventure and, they said, a real family if she would join their cause. They were from one of Colombia’s right-wing paramilitary groups, allied with the government in an effort to eliminate leftist guerrillas and protect powerful business interests.

Colombia’s shadowy network of paramilitaries is notorious for their brutality, but there are no good guys in this three-way war. The guerrillas also recruit children to fight and the government uses them as spies.

According to Julia, the child soldiers are called "little bees" because they are quick to sting the enemy. These children are virtual slaves; many are sexually abused for years. To ensure that conscripted children can never return home, armed groups sometimes force them to kill their former neighbors or even family members.

This is what researchers from MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization, found when we recently conducted over 30 interviews with former child soldiers in Colombia. On July 15, we will present the findings of these interviews, including Julia’s story, in a testimony before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva.

On that day, the Colombian government will be defending its record before the Committee. MADRE will be there to set the record straight: the government is deeply entwined with the illegal militias that exploit children as combatants. Since 2006, more than 60 Colombian congressmen have been investigated for links to paramilitary groups; about half have been indicted.

When our researcher told Julia that MADRE would deliver her testimony to the Human Rights Committee, Julia said, “I want to tell them myself.” We would like nothing more than to have Julia testify in person, but it’s simply too dangerous.

At a Committee session less than two years ago, Aida Quilcue, a Colombian human rights activist who MADRE works with, testified about violence against Indigenous Peoples (another segment of the population that suffers disproportionately from the conflict). When she returned home, her husband was gunned down in an attempt to assassinate her. She has endured regular death threats and has been forced into hiding since testifying.

This year, the MADRE-supported community center in Bogotá, where Julia and other former child soldiers receive trauma counseling, art therapy and recreational programs to help them heal from their ordeals, has faced threats and an attempted break-in. We don’t know who the perpetrators are, but in a country where hundreds of human rights activists are killed each year, the director of the center is not taking any chances with the safety of these kids.

We will have to make do with pseudonyms and written testimonies to support our demand that the Colombian government meet its legal obligation to stop the use of child soldiers on its territory. But ultimately, it may be the U.S. government that has the most leverage in ending this atrocity.

That’s because the U.S. is footing the bill for Colombia’s long war. Over the past 15 years, as Colombia has become the staunchest of U.S. allies in the hemisphere, the U.S. has poured billions in military aid, weapons and training into the country, thereby fueling a conflict in which all sides exploit children as soldiers.

Some of these “soldiers” are as young as eight years old; their childhood and humanity destroyed in a war that is largely financed by U.S. taxpayers. So while we’ll continue to hold the Colombian government accountable to its human rights obligations, we must also work to ensure that U.S. policies are not complicit in turning children into killers.

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and small business organizations and owners across this country want Wall Street Reform. But you wouldn't know that from the attention the media gives to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the mouthpiece for the big financial institutions that oppose reform.

The U.S. Chamber purports to represent small businesses. However, the reality is quite different. The July/August edition of the Washington Monthly features an eye-opening story on Tom Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber, who has a plaque on his desk that reads, "SHOW ME THE MONEY." In 2008, a third of the Chamber's revenues came from just 19 big companies.

When big oil, insurance and other companies are out of favor because of their greed, they turn to the U.S. Chamber to convince Congress and the public that the needed reforms are bad for business in general and small business in particular. This is exactly what is going on regarding Wall Street reform.

It’s clear that the U.S. Chamber does not represent the interests of small businesses that have suffered because of the irresponsible actions of the nation's biggest banks. The greed of these financial institutions collapsed our economy and shut down loans and credit lines to our small businesses. We hear macro and micro stories every day about small businesses not getting access to the money they need. And every economist acknowledges that small businesses must hire the employees we need to lead us out of this recession just as they have in the last three economic recoveries.

But ironically, the only business sector that’s apparently hiring is Wall Street, as the New York Times explains in a recent piece. Greed is still alive and well on Wall Street. And we all know that without Wall Street reform, greed will bring our economy down again and tear apart our small businesses -- if we can ever get them back on their feet.

Yet, the U.S. Chamber still wants Congress and the public to be afraid -- very afraid. Wall Street reform will dry up loans to small business, the U.S. Chamber warns. That’s wrong. Their big bank donors are doing pretty well right now and they aren't doing that by making small business loans and investing in our communities. They're making money gambling on Wall Street.

The U.S. Chamber pretends to be a friend to Main Street worried that Sam the Butcher, Joe the Orthodontist and your local car dealer will be regulated out of business. That's not in the Wall Street reform proposal.

What the butcher, orthodontist and car dealer want are customers -- the customers who lost their jobs because of Wall Street greed.

Small business supports this reform because it will restore balance between Wall Street and Main Street through fair and commonsense policies and create a stable, transparent financial environment in which community banks and credit unions can once again feel secure in making loans.

We at the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce have been strong supporters of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to better protect consumers, which includes small businesses. We're not afraid of good regulation that keeps our customers and us safe from financial predators.

We're in favor of making banks be banks and not gambling houses. We have been strong supporters of the "Volcker Rule" to put the brakes on proprietary trading by banks -- the practice that largely is responsible for bringing us to the brink of another Great Depression.

Congress should just say no to the U.S. Chamber. The financial health of our country and our small businesses depends on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Knapp is president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

The shy 14-year-old was not sure how many people she had killed. “When it was my turn to shoot someone, I always hid my face because I was afraid.” Julia (not her real name) is one of thousands of children in Colombia who have been recruited for combat in a decades-long war.

Her story is tragically typical. Years ago, Julia’s family fled their home in the countryside when her father was accused of betraying the local guerrilla commander. Like so many displaced people, Julia’s family ended up in one of Bogotá’s sprawling and dangerous shanty-towns.

Unable to enroll in school because of the cost, Julia spent most of her time in the streets. Gradually, she stopped going home at night because of an abusive new step-father. Julia was 11-years-old at the time, homeless, hungry and afraid.

The men who approached her were kind. They offered food, adventure and, they said, a real family if she would join their cause. They were from one of Colombia’s right-wing paramilitary groups, allied with the government in an effort to eliminate leftist guerrillas and protect powerful business interests.

Colombia’s shadowy network of paramilitaries is notorious for their brutality, but there are no good guys in this three-way war. The guerrillas also recruit children to fight and the government uses them as spies.

According to Julia, the child soldiers are called "little bees" because they are quick to sting the enemy. These children are virtual slaves; many are sexually abused for years. To ensure that conscripted children can never return home, armed groups sometimes force them to kill their former neighbors or even family members.

This is what researchers from MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization, found when we recently conducted over 30 interviews with former child soldiers in Colombia. On July 15, we will present the findings of these interviews, including Julia’s story, in a testimony before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva.

On that day, the Colombian government will be defending its record before the Committee. MADRE will be there to set the record straight: the government is deeply entwined with the illegal militias that exploit children as combatants. Since 2006, more than 60 Colombian congressmen have been investigated for links to paramilitary groups; about half have been indicted.

When our researcher told Julia that MADRE would deliver her testimony to the Human Rights Committee, Julia said, “I want to tell them myself.” We would like nothing more than to have Julia testify in person, but it’s simply too dangerous.

At a Committee session less than two years ago, Aida Quilcue, a Colombian human rights activist who MADRE works with, testified about violence against Indigenous Peoples (another segment of the population that suffers disproportionately from the conflict). When she returned home, her husband was gunned down in an attempt to assassinate her. She has endured regular death threats and has been forced into hiding since testifying.

This year, the MADRE-supported community center in Bogotá, where Julia and other former child soldiers receive trauma counseling, art therapy and recreational programs to help them heal from their ordeals, has faced threats and an attempted break-in. We don’t know who the perpetrators are, but in a country where hundreds of human rights activists are killed each year, the director of the center is not taking any chances with the safety of these kids.

We will have to make do with pseudonyms and written testimonies to support our demand that the Colombian government meet its legal obligation to stop the use of child soldiers on its territory. But ultimately, it may be the U.S. government that has the most leverage in ending this atrocity.

That’s because the U.S. is footing the bill for Colombia’s long war. Over the past 15 years, as Colombia has become the staunchest of U.S. allies in the hemisphere, the U.S. has poured billions in military aid, weapons and training into the country, thereby fueling a conflict in which all sides exploit children as soldiers.

Some of these “soldiers” are as young as eight years old; their childhood and humanity destroyed in a war that is largely financed by U.S. taxpayers. So while we’ll continue to hold the Colombian government accountable to its human rights obligations, we must also work to ensure that U.S. policies are not complicit in turning children into killers.

When President Obama spoke to the nation about the Gulf Coast Oil Spill, he gave us needed straight talk for holding BP accountable and helping those affected by the spill. But, when it came down to talking about clean energy, he disappointed. This was his moment to say America needs a new investment in renewable energy and that it’s time to end America’s dependence on fossil fuels.

While Americans are all feeling the impacts of the spill, we have collectively failed to make the connection between our everyday oil use and the recklessness and negligence that led to the destruction we are witnessing now. Our consumption habits and antiquated infrastructure are exponentially increasing demand, creating an environment in which taking shortcuts on safety standards can prove to be profitable for oil and gas companies.

We need a structural shift to make our economy oil independent. This starts at the grassroots level by mobilizing our family, friends and neighbors to support federal, state and local solutions to our oil dependence. We need a clean energy and climate proposal that is comprehensive and ambitious enough to incentivize real energy independence. Even if Congress continues to delay, there are opportunities for change available at the local level. We need to promote state-based clean energy initiatives and engage local leaders to commit to clean energy policies to curb urban sprawl and promote oil-free transportation.

We need to lay the groundwork for a green economy, and focus on the opportunities clean energy provides our society. There is understandable concern for jobs and financial resources as the economy slowly recovers. Shifting to a green economy will create jobs in industries like agriculture, research and development, and manufacturing.

Failure to shift the U.S. towards a new green economy will continue to give countries like Germany and China control over the multi-trillion dollar alternative energy market. The 2009 CERNA Research Program on Technology Transfer and Climate Change confirmed that countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol, like Germany and Spain, were ranking higher in clean energy innovations than countries like the U.S. that didn’t ratify the Protocol (China was not obligated to, but did embrace the treaty). These countries have invested in the markets, financing and infrastructure that have provided jobs and have proven to be very profitable. American money shifted from the oil industry and applied to clean energy will increase job opportunity in these burgeoning markets and increase our competitiveness in the global economy. By maintaining the status quo for our energy needs we are sacrificing a very lucrative opportunity and chance to give new life to our manufacturing sector.

A report from the Department of Commerce recently showed that there are more than 2 million clean energy jobs currently in place, far more than the estimated 1.3 million jobs currently provided by the oil industry. If the government passes a comprehensive and ambitious clean energy proposal and expands programs such as the Clean Energy Treasury Grant Program, the infrastructure and support will be in place to create more green jobs. Recently, a group of legislators including Senators Cantwell, Stabenow and Nelson agreed that extending the Clean Energy Treasury Grant Program would help to create 65,000 jobs in the solar energy sector alone. Clean and alternative energy provides America with the resources and jobs necessary to move away from our current oil-dependent culture. More than 3 million fishing and tourism jobs, from Texas to New Jersey, are in jeopardy because of the BP oil disaster.

The devastation is a reminder that we must find other energy resources and that our current oil addiction drives us to risky methods of extraction. The President was right when he said that “we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy — because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.” We need to make a statement to the oil companies and the government that American society can no longer afford to depend heavily on oil.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rogers is the president of Earth Day Network.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum 7/10

The recent acceptance of $8.3 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees by the builders of the Vogtle nuclear reactors seems like good news for Georgia electric customers. Nationwide taxpayers will now share in the costs and risks that had been on the shoulders of the customers of the utilities building the two reactors.

But don’t celebrate too soon.

There are more loan guarantees in the pipeline — a total of $54.5 billion, none for Georgia reactors. These guarantees mean that you and I will repay the lender if the project cannot. The $54.5 billion would amount to an exposure of more than $500 for every American family. Some in Congress want unlimited nuclear loan guarantees, which translate to unlimited taxpayer exposure.

For each of these loan guarantees, Georgia taxpayers will be exposed to the risks of new nuclear construction in such places as Texas, Maryland and South Carolina. Before long, the costs Georgians have passed on to taxpayers elsewhere through the Vogtle loan guarantees may be outweighed by the economic exposure that they will take on to help build reactors elsewhere.

The terms of these deals might, if only we could read them, upset everyone from environmentalists, who want an efficient fight against climate change, to tea party activists, who object to the clandestine fingers that government and special interests often stick into taxpayer wallets.

But will American families know the criteria for issuing these loan guarantees? Not on your life. Nor will they even be told what fee the nuclear developers will pay to compensate the Treasury for taking on the risk of default.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE) press office, the size of this fee will be determined through “a negotiation” involving the Office of Management and Budget, the DOE and the loan guarantee recipient. The secret final figure will be determined by a “consensus” of this “partnership.”

That information is “proprietary” and “will remain confidential” to avoid giving one recipient grounds to complain that it didn’t get as good a deal as another recipient. Apparently DOE would like to be able to charge nuclear developers a low fee without any backtalk from developers of renewable energy or energy efficiency projects who might be charged several times as much.

Few, if any, new reactors will be built without taxpayer-backed loan guarantees because the financial risk is more than private lenders are willing to take on.

The nuclear industry has been advocating for a fee of 1 percent of the guarantee. For every $100 that an average American family is risking, the Treasury would collect only a dollar from the nuclear developer.

How likely are the events that might cause a default? Certainly more likely than the oil well blowout that is devastating the Gulf of Mexico. Half of all the reactors ever to receive U.S. construction permits were cancelled before completion. Many of those completed cost at least twice the original estimate. Cost estimates for new reactors have tripled in the last decade while those of nuclear power’s major low-carbon competitors continue to fall.

Even in the heyday of Wall Street’s notorious “credit default swap,” knowledgeable investors wanted no part of insuring against nuclear default, especially not at fees of $1 per $100 at risk. No wonder DOE, which has a poor record of managing credit support programs, intends to keep the criteria and the fee secret.

Who is really hurt by this secrecy? First, the public, unable to understand the extent to which the government has exposed American families to uncompensated risk. Second, the builders of other forms of power generation and energy efficiency, unable to prove what now seems very likely: that DOE intends to charge less for guarantees for highly risky nuclear ventures than it will charge for loan guarantees to more secure renewable ventures. And finally, state utility regulators, unable to set rates based on actual costs if loan guarantee recipients can use DOE’s cloak of secrecy to claim that they cannot disclose those costs in a public forum.

President Barack Obama wants the federal bureaucracy to reform this malign tradition. The DOE website proclaims, “From his first day in office, President Obama has pushed to make the federal government more open and more accessible to the American people. The Department of Energy is proud to be doing our part.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s Openness Directive on the DOE Web page concludes, “I look forward to reading your thoughts and to incorporating them into our effort moving forward.”Please take him at his word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bradford is a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions. He is currently an adjunct professor at the Vermont Law School.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by Georgia Forum. 7/10

Dave Rauschkolb took on the oil industry when it got personal—it threatened his beach and his business.

Rauschkolb is not an environmental lawyer or professional Sierra Club-type. He’s an avid surfer and owns a pizza bar on the northwest coast of Florida, within range of the BP spill. Rauschkolb has never called himself an activist. But he was so incensed that state and federal politicians let the oil industry take a gamble on the safety of drilling in the Gulf Coast that he recently organized a protest called “Hands Across the Sand." What started just weeks ago as an idea on a website mushroomed into more than 900 events in all 50 states and more than 30 other countries—thousands of people who linked hands on beaches to take a stand for protecting coastlines and waterways.

Many people have a profound connection to their rivers, lakes, oceans, and reservoirs. “It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican, or an environmentalist or a businessperson,” Rauschkolb says. “Floridians are passionate about their coastal heritage, as much as Americans are passionate about their coastal heritage.”

Since water is a universal, basic human need, threats to our water become immediate, personal and frightening. That may be why Rauschkolb’s demonstrations appealed to so many, why the public gets so upset by threats to water, and why groups like the Waterkeepers can attract such ardent citizen advocates. Waterkeepers are known for using their own boats, canoes, and kayaks to patrol rivers. Robert Kennedy Jr. helped found the Waterkeepers, which started as a group of fishermen who were enraged over Penn Central Railroad’s practice of dumping oil into the Croton River, north of New York City. Starting in the 1980s, Kennedy went to some extremes to clean up the river and end dumping. In an interview with YES! Magazine, he described crawling up a discharge pipe to gather evidence to use in suing polluters.

Water is part of our common public trust. That’s a simple, democratic idea that has no party lines. Legal principles that are part of our environmental laws and date back to before the

Magna Carta give every one of us the right to access clean beaches and drinkable water. Those principles also imply that we have a responsibility: We—the people, businesses, civic associations, and government—have to protect our water so that everyone is able to use it.

Americans’ passion for protecting water has long been a force behind the environmental movement. Anger over the 1969 oil rig blowout in Santa Barbara, with its images of oiled birds and polluted beaches, led to the creation of the first Earth Day in 1970. Today, the destructive effects of our fossil fuel economy on our coasts and rivers have never been clearer.

Rural Tennessee is still recovering from the 2008 coal-ash spill that smothered rivers and wetlands with toxic sludge. New processes of natural gas extraction, which involve injecting chemicals below the ground surface, are rendering water sources across the country undrinkable. A rash of new natural gas projects in upstate New York has led American Rivers to list the Upper Delaware River, a water source for 17 million people, as the nation’s most threatened stream. In the rural West, some water supplies have become so contaminated with the byproducts of gas drilling that homeowners can light their tap water on fire. Meanwhile, the State Department is considering a proposal to allow Canadian oil companies to build an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas that would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, exposing the water source for communities in eight states to the risk of oil leaks.

Most Americans can recite the reasons why we need to move away from the fossil fuel economy—climate change, dwindling supplies of easy-to-access oil, dependence on foreign sources of energy—but much of the damage caused by our fossil-fuel addiction is hidden from view. When it shows up on our beaches or in our water glasses, it’s enough to make you want to paddle out in a canoe and raise a ruckus, or get out of your car, or join a throng of people on the beach and demand a new energy policy and climate bill.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ostrander is senior editor of YES! Magazine.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

Every country counts its people. The numbers tell decision-makers about current and future needs.

“Everyone counts” is the theme for this year’s World Population Day.

If people and their characteristics aren’t counted, governments can’t plan. If identification is not granted, it is impossible to track progress over a lifetime. If a birth certificate indicates a need for schooling, that informs the education system. If death records specify, to the extent possible, cause of death, health systems can be oriented to meet actual needs. If death records specify causes related to HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, pregnancy and childbirth, specific health services can be prioritized. Government planning depends on local and regional information that is supplemented by interviews with the groups most concerned. Such data makes it possible to meet real needs.

Good data is critical for evidence-based policies and programs for improving people’s lives. Yet while timely and reliable data is routine in richer countries, many resource-constrained developing countries struggle to conduct the censuses and surveys that they need for effective planning.

For the past 30 years, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has played a lead operational role in helping to build countries' capacities for data collection and analysis. A current focus of UNFPA support is the successful implementation of the 2010 round of population and housing censuses (2005-2014).

In 2009, UNFPA supported 77 governments’ national population and housing censuses and paved the way for other censuses in 2010. This work is often complex, as in Iraq, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, UNFPA is promotingnew data collection technologies and assisting Bosnia and Herzegovina to conduct a census. In Africa, UNFPA is helping to analyze data collected by recent censuses in Chad, Liberia and Nigeria. All these countries could not complete their censuses in 2000 and Liberia’s successful census ended a period of more than 30 years in which no statistical work could be done. In Asia and the Pacific, the enumerations have successfully concluded in Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Viet Nam and censuses are being prepared for East Timor and Mongolia. In Latin America and the Caribbean, national statistical institutes are participating in training to enhance skills for data collection and analysis.

Census data reveals compelling characteristics about employment, education and health services in countries. It provides information about population growth, the movements of people, age structures, poverty levels, urbanization and the spatial distribution of a country's population. Countries can use that information to plan investments, save lives and improve opportunities for present and future generations.

With world attention focused on achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, and the upcoming MDG10 Summit at the United Nations in September, the availability of consistent and comparable statistical information has become even more crucial. Data for development plays a prominent role in monitoring progress, assessing and realigning plans and strategies, and conducting effective advocacy. Data, and public access to it, contributes to transparency and accountability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obaid is executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

It’s a relevant question since Gov. Bill Ritter recently signed a work-share bill into law. Since the law is new, there are a lot of questions about what it means for Colorado workers. We'd like to provide some answers.

Work-share is a voluntary program that companies can use to weather short-term business declines.

Under the program, employers can reduce the hours of a work force to avoid layoffs. Employees, in turn, can claim unemployment benefits for the reduction in work hours.

Seventeen states have such programs and employers have reported these benefits: Sharing of reduced hours is less disruptive than layoffs; quality, skilled employees are retained; employee morale and productivity are sustained; and the cost of recruitment and training costs, once the economy improves, are reduced.

Because employees continue to receive their existing health and retirement benefits, there is less need to turn to state services for support. Also, the state sees savings in job assistance programs when more workers remain on the job.

In many states, these programs are considered pro-business initiatives. Businesses will opt in only if it makes business sense, and experience in other states has shown that work-share programs allow companies to lower costs during economic downturns and still keep skilled workers.

The cost to participating businesses, in terms of payments to the unemployment insurance fund, is the same as if they laid off workers.

Under Colorado's new law, employers must submit a work-share plan to the Department of Labor and Employment; and they must certify that the plan and the reduction in hours are in lieu of temporary layoffs.

Plans must apply to at least 10 percent of employees, and work hours must be reduced by at least 10 percent and not more than 40 percent. Finally, employers must state their strategy for restoring work hours for participating employees.

Plans could last a maximum of 18 weeks, as opposed to 26 weeks for regular unemployment benefits. The entire work-share program is, in essence, tied to the current economic downturn; it will sunset in two years.

At the state level, work-share programs are seen as effective because, quite simply, they keep more people working. Consumer spending does not dip as it does when workers are laid off, and that is a benefit to the overall economy.

That's a dramatic increase from 621 employers and 21,272 employees in 2008, and is attributable to the declining economy.

Washington paid out $40 million in unemployment benefits under the shared-work program in 2009, a savings of $54 million over what workers would have received if they had collected the state-average 17 weeks of traditional unemployment benefits, according to Washington's Employment Security Division.

The analysis of Colorado's work-share bill by the nonpartisan Legislative Council estimated that it would save as much as $2 million per year in unemployment insurance payments and require no additional employees to implement.

"Shared Work helps us maintain our competitive advantage," said Terry Schweyen, owner of ASAP Metal Fabricators in Yakima, WA. "It lets us keep our key people – a lot of trained people who have skill sets we need – until things pick up."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jones is director of policy and research at the Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy and research organization based in Denver.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by Colorado Editorial Forum. 7/10

Up-front cash is often the main barrier preventing people from pursuing efficiency or renewable energy projects like replacing an old HVAC system or installing solar panels. The PACE program creates a huge new market for upgrades and thousands of green jobs in Missouri. The yearly savings on energy bills from the PACE projects outweigh their yearly property assessment, which makes these upgrade projects immediately cost effective.

So how does it work? The PACE program is a financing tool that allows homeowners to pay for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations through a property assessment on their taxes over 20 years. The PACE model provides little risk for lenders as the loans are assessed to the property, carry a fixed interest rate, and stay with the house so if the owner moves the person who purchases the property becomes responsible for the remaining amount.

PACE is a locally implemented program. After a city or county decides to implement a PACE program they set up a Clean Energy Development Board (CEDB). The Board is then charged with designing the program, issuing the low risk bonds, and overseeing which applications are funded. Once a CEDB has been established, home or business owners can begin to apply for PACE financing. Before a Missourian receives PACE financing, however, a certified energy auditor determines which improvements would best save the homeowner money on their energy bills. The audit must show that the estimated savings on energy bills over the life of the assessment will be greater than the cost of the project.

Developed in 2007, PACE enabling legislation has already been passed in 21 states, allowing cities and counties in those states to establish PACE programs. Although the Missouri General Assembly has passed PACE, Governor Nixon still must sign the bill into law. If Nixon signs PACE, cities and counties can begin implementing the program. Then, the demand for certified energy auditors, energy efficient technology manufacturers, and insulation, window, solar, and HVAC installers will greatly increase. In fact, PACE is expected to create 160,000 skilled-labor green jobs nationally -- jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Beyond creating jobs, PACE helps homeowners lower their energy bills and increase the value of their homes through the upgrades. Home energy experts claim that homes with efficiency upgrades have been shown to spend fewer days on the market and sell for higher amounts.

PACE can also help to slow the financial and environmental drain placed on Missouri’s economy from importing and burning coal. According to a recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Missouri currently imports more than 99 percent of the coal used in its power plants. This costs Missouri $1.13 billion a year. This money could, instead, be spent in the local economy either through job creation or local business investments.

Low-income housing, which often has the most desperate need for energy retrofits, can greatly benefit from the program since families who often do not qualify for traditional financing may instead qualify for PACE.

The Missouri Legislature should be applauded for approving PACE. Now the governor must do his part in making the PACE program a reality for Missouri communities. It will save homeowners and businesses money; it will help protect our environment; and it will create thousands of green energy jobs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Noble is director of Renew Missouri, a project of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by Missouri Forum. 7/10

Much of the healthcare reform reporting the past few months has focused on political winners and losers. But parents are more concerned with their families than with political scorekeeping. And let's be clear: The reform plan passed by Congress is a major victory for Texas children and families.

Children win with healthcare reform because it promotes preventative treatment, ends discrimination against sick children, helps low- and moderate-income families obtain coverage, protects young adults from becoming uninsured between graduation and employment, and makes the health insurance families already have more secure and stable. Millions of Texas children and their families win, thanks to these reforms.

Everyone can agree that the best way to stay healthy is to prevent sickness and injury, and healthcare reform helps do just that. It puts doctors in charge by requiring insurance companies to pay for preventive services, including CDC-recommended immunizations for children and teens. Winners: all of Texas’ 6.7 million children.

Starting in September, healthcare reform will no longer allow insurance companies to discriminate against sick children. This means that insurance applications for sick children cannot be denied, even for newborns. And, once children have coverage, they cannot be denied treatment. This provides much needed health and financial coverage for families. Winners: Texas’ 1.1 million children with special health-care needs.

Children with chronic conditions or a recurring disease can rack up huge healthcare bills, often exceeding their insurance coverage limits over time. Beginning in September, healthcare reform will prohibit insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on benefits -- a big win for the financial security of families with children who have chronic conditions. Winners: protection for all of Texas’ insured families.

For many working parents, getting coverage for their children through their employer is just not an option – because either it isn't offered or is too expensive. Today, fewer than half (46 percent) of Texas children have health insurance through their parent’s employer -- down from 57 percent in 1999. Healthcare reform will provide real bargaining power for working families through the creation of health insurance exchanges in 2014. These exchanges are new regulated marketplaces where families who do not have job-based insurance can buy coverage. Winners: the children of employees at Texas’ 340,000 small businesses.

Research shows that insured children are more likely to receive treatment when their parents are insured. Unfortunately, Medicaid excludes most nondisabled adults. Beginning in 2014, healthcare reform will expand Medicaid to include all U.S. citizens with incomes near or below the poverty line, so that children and parents can be covered together. Reform also continues the successful CHIP program, which covers nearly 506,000 Texas children living in families that make less than twice the poverty level. Winners: Texas’ 2.1 million low-income families.

Lastly, healthcare reform will keep the uninsured ranks from swelling each May when children graduate. Today, when young adults move into the job market, they often lose the coverage they had with their parent’s policy. Under reform, parents will be able to keep their kids on their policy until they turn 26. Winners: 3 million 18- to 25-year-old Texans.

As an antidote to Texas’ worst child uninsured rate in the nation (21 percent) healthcare reform delivers what families need: affordable, reliable health-care coverage that won't disappear should they lose a job or get sick. Winners: Texas’ 1.4 million uninsured children.

By working together to encourage strong implementation of health reform, all our kids will be winners.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deviney is director of Texas KIDS COUNT, a project at the Center for Public Policy Priorities.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by Texas Lone Star Forum. 7/10

It’s not enough that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have topped one trillion dollars. Now there is a supplemental appropriations bill awaiting a vote in the House of Representatives that will add $37 billion more, plus some other odd bedfellows.

This so-called supplemental allows other “emergency” spending issues to be added; Members of Congress know it cannot fail because it’s for the wars. Up for consideration is millions for the Gulf Coast oil spill response and billions to keep teachers, police and firefighters on the job as communities dig out of the recession. Oh, and $9 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors.

Wouldn’t you love to see all these items separated? Wouldn’t you love to know how your elected representatives would vote on the wars, the oil spill response, teachers, police and fire, and also nuclear reactor loan guarantees? These are separate issues with different values attached.

You might want your rep to vote for teachers, firefighters and police protection, but not for the wars, for example. And you just might be confused about why any loan guarantee is in there at all. What? Nuclear loan guarantees constitute an urgent and unanticipated spending need?

Consider this:

Providing loan guarantees for nuclear power projects is not an emergency. A design for a new reactor hasn’t even been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; that’s at least a year away. After that, the construction and operating license process will take another year or more. The project most likely to seek the $9 billion contained in the appropriations bill is still scrambling to find investors – probably because the estimated cost of the South Texas project, as it is known, has skyrocketed from $5.4 billion in 2006 to $18.2 billion today.

Second, there’s already money available for loan guarantees. The Department of Energy has at least $10 billion in authority. In February, DOE offered the Southern Company $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors to be built in Georgia. Southern is still mulling over whether to accept the money. If it declines, then the DOE will have a whopping $18.5 billion to dole out. What’s the rush?

Third, new reactors are highly risky investments and the private market isn’t interested. Wall Street wants taxpayers to take the hit if things go sour. Private companies love the idea of federal loan guarantees because they subsidize the cost of capital. Rather than pay the market rate for a loan – especially one deemed high-risk – the borrowers get a lower interest fee because the Treasury (meaning U.S. taxpayers) will pay back the loan if the borrower defaults.

If the government is going to get into hedging Wall Street’s bets, then wouldn’t it make sense to start small (although small is a relative term when it comes to anything involving reactor costs) and see what happens? But that’s not how the nuclear industry and its friends in Washington are thinking these days. Indeed, there’s talk about increasing the program to $54 billion or even providing a blank check for guarantees before we’ve had a chance to see how much risk – and cost – there actually is. Americans are justifiably gun-shy about bailouts.

Fourth, this just looks wrong. Attaching a bailout for the nuclear industry to a “must pass” war and disaster-spending bill seems a lot like wrapping a controversial plan in the American flag. It’s that sort of deal-making that fuels public dissatisfaction with Washington these days. If this is a wise and appropriate use of public funds, then open it up for full consideration and debate.

A legislative vote for money for Iraq should be separate from money for Afghanistan. The issue of helping states to keep teachers, police and fire should be a separate issue. And loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors should stand or fall on its own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions.-----------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 6/10

The long-awaited climate proposal crafted by Sens. John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman has finally landed on Capitol Hill. The proposal, though, is a massive nuclear bailout under the guise of an energy overhaul.

Near the top of the almost-1,000-page document is this statement: It is the policy of the United States&to facilitate the continued development and growth of a safe and clean nuclear energy industry. To achieve that, the proposal offers $54 billion in loan guarantees, plus enormous tax breaks and other financial giveaways, and cuts short licensing and safety reviews of new reactors.

The nuclear power industry has skillfully and successfully painted itself green -- an environmentally benign answer to reducing carbon emissions. The industry and many in Washington want us to believe that a new generation of nuclear reactors will solve the problems of climate change and allow us to live happily ever after. That's a costly fairy tale.

Beneath the lofty promises of delivering a clean and safe energy supply by building a fleet of large new reactors are some very troubling truths -- facts the nuclear industry and its advocates seem to have forgotten in their haste to marry climate change legislation to this modern-day nuclear bandwagon.

Consider the following:

Cost: New nuclear reactors are extremely expensive, in the range of $10 billion each. Nobody knows exactly how much because no one has built a new reactor in this country for decades. But no reactor has ever been built on budget, or on time. Other forms of low-carbon generation are far cheaper and have the track record to prove it. For consumers, the cost differences will be evident in higher electric bills.

Risk: Private investors want no part of underwriting the cost of nuclear power. So, U.S. taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill through at least $54 billion in loan guarantees. And, just in case construction schedules do go awry (as they always have in the past), taxpayers will provide risk insurance to the utilities for delays in licensing, up to $500 million per reactor. The proposal expands this program so dramatically that taxpayers would even pay for idle worker time.

Time: The time to tackle global warming is now. New nuclear reactors won t begin to produce a kilowatt of power for at least a decade, and probably longer. Non-polluting renewable alternatives -- wind, geothermal, tidal power, solar -- can join the energy mix quickly and move this nation off its high-carbon diet now.

Threats: New nuclear reactors increase the danger of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. About 63,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel sits at reactor sites around the country, a target for terrorists. Conventional explosives directed at a spent fuel in these pools could wreak radiation and environmental havoc over a large area. Nuclear expansion also heightens the risks of nuclear proliferation worldwide. One reactor can produce enough fissionable material each year to make a nuclear bomb. Small amounts of radioactive materials can be used to make a modified conventional bomb, also called a dirty bomb.

Health: The nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers and communities to radiation from mining, milling, fuel fabrication, transportation, reactor operation, all the way to decommissioning and disposal. The biggest population-level exposure is actually to the uranium miners and millers and surrounding communities. Surely, these health implications need to be considered. Do we want to saddle future generations with the burden of solving these problems?

The green myth: Nuclear power is not environmentally friendly. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy. Nuclear power produces large quantities of radioactive waste that remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no permanent solution for managing it. In addition, nuclear reactors consume large quantities of water. Many of the new reactors on the drawing boards are located in regions of the country experiencing severe water shortages. Why spend billions to build a reactor that may have to shut down during a drought?

We have waited far too long for a meaningful climate change proposal to surface in Washington. Yes, we need a green energy policy. Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear power, the green in the Kerry-Lieberman proposal is largely taxpayer dollars subsidizing an industry that can't -- or won't -- stand on its own.

Clapp is professor of public health at Boston University School of Public Health and former board member of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility.